I'm not saying that film crews should risk life and limb to get real shots, just that they should state that some shots have been made in zoos or with tame and sometimes trained animals instead of being shot in the wild, so that the public is left in no doubt.

I do remember hearing on the radio (BBC) from a man who worked in wildlife 'foley' making the sound effects of scuffling mice etc. He explained that the camera zoom was so extreme they'd never have the sound equipment to match it!

I didn't know that they did that. Obviously lots of technicians and camera people etc are in the know, but huge chunks of the public aren't. I just think they should make it explicit so that people do not believe that the staged sound effects are in fact real.

What's "ethical" about any of it? You do know they film the closeups of birds flying by using tame birds?

That most of the underground shots of creatures are in an artificial environment right? How did you think they got a high quality camera in a burrow without causing the mother to panic & abandon the nest?

I think you're being deliberately naive TBH. I'd rather have high quality footage than "camera on a stick" footage any day. The "evidence" is in the credits and, in this case, the "How It's Made" section of the DVD and that's where it should stay. If you can't be arsed to read it then tough!!

I personally don't want bloody great pop-ups saying "Alert! Staged Footage" all over something I'm trying to watch & neither do most people given the lack of outrage outside of the press...

I think it is about ethics due to the possibility of misleading some members of the public.

Have googled and apparently someone did write in to complain about the scene to the BBC Editorial Standards Committee, but the appeal did not qualify to proceed for consideration by the Committee.

"The narration was carefully worded so it did not mislead viewers, talking about polar bears in the wild in general rather than the specific cubs shown."

"On the question of informing viewers how the scene was filmed, audience feedback indicated that for natural history programmes on-screen explanations spoilt the viewing experience for the majority. Information was therefore placed on the BBC website."

I personally think that it would be better for the narrator to mention that the next scene was filmed at the zoo and explain why. That would be better than having an on-screen caption and it would remove any possibility that any of the audience had mistaken the scene as having been filmed on location in the wild.

What I meant is that we have to "keep it real" and do not want a slippery slope where it may one day become possible that reporting from war zones may be filmed on a set in a studio in the Home Counties instead of on location, because that would be a distortion of reality.

I think that is why Ethical Standards Committees for broadcasting are so important because they act as guardians of the truth and prevent deceptions.

I have no problem where things are filmed as long as it is made clear where they are filmed.

I can see exactly why the makers and viewers of this kind of documentary don't want clunky explanations in the narrative.

So long as the warning that people aren't actually wrangling polar bears or mud skippers is somewhere in the proceedings I don't think we need to worry about journalistic standards on that score.

Are you old enough to remember when Ch 4 first started and did a flashing red light to alert viewers to alarming content in films and plays? It was hilarious. I think that was intended as an ironic joke referencing a more innocent era.

When I talk about more innocent eras that's an ironic joke of mine btw.

claig - its very far-fetched to think that just because wildlife documentaries use staged footage - which everyone apart from you seems perfectly well aware of - that this would have any bearing whatsoever on news reporting.

"On the question of informing viewers how the scene was filmed, audience feedback indicated that for natural history programmes on-screen explanations spoilt the viewing experience for the majority. Information was therefore placed on the BBC website."

They've thought about it, you're in the minority in wanting intrusive information, its on the website - really there is no problem.